Friday, April 11, 2003

There are so many outrages going on in Iraq that it is becoming impossible to keep up with them:

Many stories deal with the anarchy caused by the Anglo-American attacks, anarchy which is manifesting itself by the settling of old scores, looting, murder, and the general lack of food, water, and humanitarian assistance. The British and Americans, having caused this anarchy, are morally and legally responsible to fix it, but it is as if they arrived in Iraq with no clue that they might have to be prepared for such problems. I will post on the anarchy later.

Here is a telling quote from Yves Debay, a war correspondent for the military affairs magazine Raids, on the conduct of the American advancing forces:

"They organize columns of 40 to 50 armored vehicles. Up front, M1 Abrams tanks, followed by Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees. They roll with two tanks up front, occupying the whole road. They shoot everything in sight, everything suspicious. It's 'fire at will'. They love shooting Saddam portraits with 25 mm cannons. They have no fire discipline. The initiative is left to the soldiers, 20-year-old kids. That's the reason why they also shoot civilians. An European army would never behave like this. By better controlling its troops, the British army kills considerably less civilians."

On the road from Mahmudiyah to Baghdad, Debay saw dozens of burning civilian vehicles, with all of their passengers dead. His explanation for the conduct of the Americans:

"They have two problems. They are still taking revenge for September 11, and there are no sanctions when a soldier kills a civilian. Their objective is not to kill civilians, but they behave like cowboys. They even shoot cows . . . I have the impression it's a way to mask their fear. They are very afraid. And it gets worse every time they sustain losses."

American troops shot at an ambulance in Baghdad, killing two people and wounding three. Van Moorter, from the Belgian association Medical Aid for the Third World, challenged a U. S. officer about the attack, and received the reply: "The ambulance could contain explosives."

U.S. Army Private Nick Boggs, after machine gunning a 10-year old boy to death: "I did what I had to do. I don't have a big problem with it but anyone who shoots a little kid has to feel something."

Fourteen people, including at least seven children, were killed, and scores were wounded, in the massive bomb attack on an area in the Baghdad neighborhood of Mansour, when the Americans made another unsuccessful attempt to assassinate Saddam. The similar attempt to assassinate 'Chemical Ali' by attacking his house (as if he would hide in his own house!), resulted in the deaths of at least 16 innocent civilians who were living in neighboring houses.

A few comments on the American assassinations of the journalists in Baghdad:

The facts that the Americans had bombed al-Jazeera in Kabul, were annoyed at the coverage of al-Jazeera in Iraq, were informed by al-Jazeera of the location of their offices (al-Jazeera would be better off not to tell the Pentagon the location of their offices!), and then attacked those offices anyway, would make one extremely suspicious.

The attack on a hotel containing the Reuters offices, on the actual floor of the Reuters offices, coupled with the attack on al-Jazeera, makes it an absolute certainty that these attacks were intentional.

The fact that the Pentagon lied (or here) in concocting a tale about how the tank which fired the shell was under attack from the hotel, and was thus acting in self-defense, just completes the certainty that both attacks were intentional murder. A French television channel reports that the tank raised its barrel into position to fire at these floors and waited two minutes before firing, which proves, if the tank was fired upon from that area, that the person aiming the barrel must have ESP!

The fact that the Pentagon tried to distinguish embedded journalists (otherwise known as Pentagon lackeys) from independent journalists, with only embedded journalists being protected, appears to be the Pentagon method of discouraging independent journalists by implicitly threatening to kill them. Of course, the Pentagon has already expressly threatened to kill independent journalists.

For more arguments on the fact that these attacks were intentional, see here. Note also the problems, including peculiar corporate problems, that al-Jazeera has had with its web site.

Here is Robert Fisk's account of the horrors of the wounded in Adnan Khairallah Martyr Hospital in Baghdad. Here is a similar article by Paul McGeough on Kindi Hospital, and a quote from Dr. Tarib Al Saddi:

"I have done 12 operations today - crushings, fractures and amputations. You see that these Americans are hitting civilians - their homes, their streets, their cars and even those who walk about. They hit anyone. One of the ambulance drivers says they have struck Al Yarmuk Hospital, so now we worry about a strike here."

The Kindi hospital was attacked by looters, who stripped it of everything, including beds, electrical fittings and medical equipment.

Manypeoplehavepointedout how the toppling of the statue of Saddam in Baghdad, supposedly a spontaneous effort of Iraqis assisted by the equipment of the Americans, was a completely staged and faked media event, solely intended for domestic and international propaganda purposes. The disgusting American media played along completely, filming the few Iraqis who were there in such a way that they looked like a much larger group. The most amazing thing is that the flag that was wrapped around the head of the statue came from the Pentagon, and flew on that building on September 11, and the specific soldier whose job it was to carry this flag around brought it to the statue. The Pentagon is now saying that this is just a coincidence! The absurdity of this is that the Bush Administration, despite herculean efforts, has never managed to make the slightest connection between Saddam and September 11. So why do they go to all this trouble to connect the felling of Saddam's statue to the attack on the Pentagon? It's like the man who has a bad day at work and in frustration comes home and kicks his dog. Are Americans so arrogant that they feel they have the moral justification to destroy the lives of thousands of people just so someone else can suffer because of September 11? How long will Americans wallow in their self-centered, self-important, self-pity over an attack that the more honest Americans would admit they had coming? If they didn't have it coming on September 11, they sure have it coming now.